Further Reading

Arcimoto accurately calls its electric three-wheeler a Fun Utility Vehicle—we first tested one at CES four years ago, and it remains one of the more entertaining vehicles I've driven for Ars. The company started delivering the first FUVs to customers last September, but it's not quite done with the design for this engaging little machine. As you probably know, weight is the enemy of efficiency, and even little EVs like this one have to carry around a hefty battery pack, in this case a 12kWh unit with 102.5 miles (165km) of city range. On Tuesday, Arcimoto and XponentialWorks announced they've been working together on a project that should make future FUVs even more efficient, thanks to lightweight suspension parts created using AI generative design and 3D printing.

"Our mission to rightsize the footprint of daily mobility means a continued commitment to optimizing not just the vehicle platform architecture, but all of its constituent parts as well. The speed at which the XponentialWorks team has made meaningful weight improvements to core components of the Fun Utility Vehicle is truly impressive," said Arcimoto CEO Mark Frohnmayer in a statement.

Further Reading

XponentialWorks used ParaMatters' AI software to iterate new designs for components like the FUV's brake pedal, upper control arm, rear swing arm, and knuckle. As with other AI-generated auto parts, the results look far more organic than anything you'd expect to find on a road vehicle, and the weight savings is real–between 34 and 52 percent compared to the conventionally designed and constructed bits fitted to the versions we've tested in the past. It all happened pretty rapidly, according to XponentialWorks founder Avi Reichental.

"It took us about four weeks from taking a stock car to presenting a fully functional lightweighted FUV. With our unique capabilities to combine generative, additive and simulation technologies, we expect to be in production within the next six months," he told Ars. For that to happen, everyone needs to be sure that the AI-designed, 3D-printed components are sufficient for the loads and stresses of life on the streets. "We believe that with our algorithmic finite element analysis solvers and powerful simulation technology, we can substantially compress the testing cycle and enhance the quality predictability and performance of each part," Reichental told me.

110 Reader Comments

Seriously, though, this is very cool; efficiency is our friend. I'm certainly not the prime demographic for this vehicle, but, I'm certain (well, I certainly hope) that some of these advances can "trickle sideways", or something, to other EVs.

[rant] So every computer optimization algorithm is being called "AI" now? smdh [/rant]

This type of optimization isn't new. Doing FEA optimization of machined parts has been around longer than 3D printing. What is new here is the application and the reason for it. The article mentions the why, electric vehicles' arch nemesis is weight. What we're seeing is F1 racing thinking coming to consumer vehicles. Optimization of weight reduction for extended range and maneuverability has been a part of racing design for a very long time. Now, that effort has direct correlation to electric vehicles used on roads today. Took a while but very cool, and 3D printing makes manufacturing these parts more efficient as well, so win-win.

Honestly, the weight optimizations should have been done a lot more in the auto industry, but they weren't that interested in range and efficiency unless mandated...

It will be interesting to see how the new parts compare to the old ones in durability.

Why? The materials are better and the process just as reliable from a manufacturing defect standpoint, i.e., the same structural tests need to be done during QA. The "extra" material used in the all metal parts isn't adding durability or reliability to the part, neither is the material its made of per se.

[rant] So every computer optimization algorithm is being called "AI" now? smdh [/rant]

This type of optimization isn't new. Doing FEA optimization of machined parts has been around longer than 3D printing. What is new here is the application and the reason for it. The article mentions the why, electric vehicles' arch nemesis is weight. What we're seeing is F1 racing thinking coming to consumer vehicles. Optimization of weight reduction for extended range and maneuverability has been a part of racing design for a very long time. Now, that effort has direct correlation to electric vehicles used on roads today. Took a while but very cool, and 3D printing makes manufacturing these parts more efficient as well, so win-win.

Honestly, the weight optimizations should have been done a lot more in the auto industry, but they weren't that interested in range and efficiency unless mandated...

In quantity, 3D printing doesn't make production more efficient in any case I've heard of. You use it because your quantities are too small to pay for old-fashioned industrial tooling.

It will be interesting to see how the new parts compare to the old ones in durability.

Why? The materials are better and the process just as reliable from a manufacturing defect standpoint, i.e., the same structural tests need to be done during QA. The "extra" material used in the all metal parts isn't adding durability or reliability to the part, neither is the material its made of per se.

If you're interested in trying out the technology on a smaller scale, you might look at Thomas Sanladerer's video Making STRONG shelves with topology optimization. Actually, it's the shelf brackets he optimized in Autodesk. At the time he did it with a free license to Fusion 360, that was processed in the cloud without additional charge. He said it would have been a couple hundred $ for commercial use (several iterations of the design).

It will be interesting to see how the new parts compare to the old ones in durability.

Why? The materials are better and the process just as reliable from a manufacturing defect standpoint, i.e., the same structural tests need to be done during QA. The "extra" material used in the all metal parts isn't adding durability or reliability to the part, neither is the material its made of per se.

It's been a while since I've used my aerospace engineering training, but, this I know: Every design choice has a trade-off.

Strength is reduced, even if minimally, when cutting holes in structures, and typically, the structures are already designed with directional forces in mind, which makes it even more complicated to design and test when you put a bunch of oddly shaped holes in it. Things with holes twist, buckle, and break in different ways than things without the holes. There are unforeseen consequences. And yes, durability is almost certainly reduced. You're not just "taking away extra material."

It will be interesting to see how the new parts compare to the old ones in durability.

Why? The materials are better and the process just as reliable from a manufacturing defect standpoint, i.e., the same structural tests need to be done during QA. The "extra" material used in the all metal parts isn't adding durability or reliability to the part, neither is the material its made of per se.

Theory doesn't always bear out in reality. Just because these guys claim the parts are just as strong doesn't mean they really are.

It will be interesting to see how the new parts compare to the old ones in durability.

Why? The materials are better and the process just as reliable from a manufacturing defect standpoint, i.e., the same structural tests need to be done during QA. The "extra" material used in the all metal parts isn't adding durability or reliability to the part, neither is the material its made of per se.

It's been a while since I've used my aerospace engineering training, but, this I know: Every design choice has a trade-off.

Strength is reduced, even if minimally, when cutting holes in structures, and typically, the structures are already designed with directional forces in mind, which makes it even more complicated to design and test when you put a bunch of oddly shaped holes in it. Things with holes twist, buckle, and break in different ways than things without the holes. There are unforeseen consequences. And yes, durability is almost certainly reduced. You're not just "taking away extra material."

I'm not any sort of mechanical engineer, but I see it as only being appropriate if the original part was way over engineered to the point that poking holes in it reduces it's "ruggedness" (don't know the correct term) to the point that it is only over engineered enough to meet the requirements for its use.

In quantity, 3D printing doesn't make production more efficient in any case I've heard of. You use it because your quantities are too small to pay for old-fashioned industrial tooling.

I'm interested in how would one manufacture these organic shapes with traditional industrial tooling.

It can also done as a subtractive process (start with a billet steel block and let CNC router/drill go to town on it)-- but either case it's terribly slow and expensive compared to old fashioned stamping/molding/sandcasting/finishing.

It will be interesting to see how the new parts compare to the old ones in durability.

Why? The materials are better and the process just as reliable from a manufacturing defect standpoint, i.e., the same structural tests need to be done during QA. The "extra" material used in the all metal parts isn't adding durability or reliability to the part, neither is the material its made of per se.

Do you have any data to back up your claims?

Assuming these parts were made with selective laser melting (or DMLS or whatever one likes to call it), the material quality would definitely be better than that of a cast piece (though not necessarily by any meaningful margin). Current SLM systems can print with a very high density and subsequent heat treatments can clear up most undesired metallurgic structures. What's also nice is that you can use strong alloys that are not feasible to cast. Perhaps this is what multimediavt refers to.

However, the material quality of a milled part will for the time being be superior to that of a 3D printed part (though, again, not necessarily by a meaningful margin).

It will be interesting to see how the new parts compare to the old ones in durability.

Why? The materials are better and the process just as reliable from a manufacturing defect standpoint, i.e., the same structural tests need to be done during QA. The "extra" material used in the all metal parts isn't adding durability or reliability to the part, neither is the material its made of per se.

It's been a while since I've used my aerospace engineering training, but, this I know: Every design choice has a trade-off.

Strength is reduced, even if minimally, when cutting holes in structures, and typically, the structures are already designed with directional forces in mind, which makes it even more complicated to design and test when you put a bunch of oddly shaped holes in it. Things with holes twist, buckle, and break in different ways than things without the holes. There are unforeseen consequences. And yes, durability is almost certainly reduced. You're not just "taking away extra material."

True but it it went from handling rotational stress 80x what will happen in normal usage to 4x what will happen in normal usage you have reduced strength but not in a way which impacts usability.

Due to limits in casting and stamping most conventional parts are "overbuilt" to some degree along some metric. 3D printing allows more organic solutions. Now it certainly is possible to go too far and durability suffers. The money is in figuring out the sweet spot.

I guess the big question is how good are they (or the industry in general) at doing this yet. I wouldn't be suprised in the future to see some recall of a 3D printed part because it fails in some unforseen way like you predict but we will get better at it as the industry matures.

Everyone is talking about strength but most often with things like suspension components or other highly stressed parts, the critical factor is not strength but stiffness. You have to keep the geometry of the structure within closely controlled distortion limits under the expected loads or the vehicle will be unpredictable and uncontrollable.

That's the beauty of additive manufacture, you can vary wall thickness of hollow structures to give you the right combination of properties. As for the sudden 'remembering' that lightness is important, of course this has always been the case but was easily overcome (at least for travelling in a straight line) by adding more power. Now, you are carrying around a proverbial tonne of batteries, so you have work hard just to keep the vehicle at a weight where it won't sink into the road or at least where the weight of the vehicle does not in itself mean heavier everything just to support it's own bulk.

I really hope they get the costs of these things down. I could use one for almost all of my driving but I don't see why I would pay that much for one when I'm better off buying a slightly used, cheaper Nissan Cube that's so much more capable. Frankly, at that price I feel like there are more capable motorcycles I would rather own.

It’s nice to see a Chapman reference so early in the comments! But it’s not the first one, as you may well know—the article’s title alludes to a famous (and maybe apocryphal) anecdote about how Colin Chapman ran Lotus, which he founded. Supposedly, he would exhort his engineers to “simplicate and add lightness!”

It’s a beautifully succinct description of the central project of so much mechanical engineering. I knew who the author was the moment I saw “add lightness” in the hed. Well played!

So they optimized from a part that looks like it was designed with rapid (and cheap) construction from standard box section and got weight savings. Congrats. A good engineer would likely be able to come up with a similar weight reduction if you throw cost effective manufacturability out the window.

First impression of that rear swingarm for me is also: Could probably be lighter still. Seems to hold a lot of excess material. Same with the brake pedal. (Which is basically a curvy box girder)

I'm not a mechanical engineer but my first impression of those shapes is perhaps they will not be as tolerant of manufacturing defects and stress or corrosion. Could be just as good but it *looks* like designing closer to the edge of failure.

When I read the lighter percentages am I to assume this comes with no loss in strength? Or is there a smaller percentage loss? Or is it deemed acceptable?

If it meets the specs + fudge factor, who cares?

Well I would like a product that exceeds a standard not meets it.

If for example this vehicle weighs 30% less and costs the manufacturer less to produce, but it loses 30% of its lifespan because printed parts on it don't last as long, it still may "meet the specs" but I would not want to purchase it.